Phelps Banned From Uk

[Aloysius]

as much as I hate phelps, I love that I live in a country where EVEN his free speech is allowed. come now, you think Britain will stop at Phelps? To many people, there's no difference between what he says and a nuanced ballanced position that homosexual acts are sinful and homosexual marriage shouldn't be recognized and homosexuals couples shouldn't adopt but that homosexual persons are not to be hated...

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]"So they [the authorities] might have their work cut out for them.

"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."[/quote]


Is she being sarcastic or is this for reals?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1785971' date='Feb 19 2009, 10:10 PM']haha at first i thought they meant the swimmer because of the weed.
I was like wow [/quote]


[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1786366' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:38 AM']I knew which Phelps it was, but that guy gets my goat.[/quote]
I also thought of Fred and not Michael. We are smartical!

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1786378' date='Feb 20 2009, 11:58 AM']Is she being sarcastic or is this for reals?[/quote]
It's for reals.

[CoffeeCatholic]

yup, another one for the thought it was the swimmer comment.

i guess that means even in this community, his crazy rhetoric has barely any influence. Good job St. Michael!

[Aloysius]

I may not like what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. Mark my words, today it's "extremism" against homosexuals like the Westboro Baptist Church, tomorrow it's "extremism" against homosexuality like the Roman Catholic Church that will be banned from that country. Cling to the US Constitution and defend it even for this Phelps fellow, for there is NO nation on earth whose government we can trust to censor against error and therefore we must demand governments that tolerate even the most vile of errors so that our beliefs may also be protected.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786442' date='Feb 20 2009, 02:02 PM']I may not like what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. Mark my words, today it's "extremism" against homosexuals like the Westboro Baptist Church, tomorrow it's "extremism" against homosexuality like the Roman Catholic Church that will be banned from that country. Cling to the US Constitution and defend it even for this Phelps fellow, for there is NO nation on earth whose government we can trust to censor against error and therefore we must demand governments that tolerate even the most vile of errors so that our beliefs may also be protected.[/quote]

Very astute point. I will have to remember that.

[WillT]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786375' date='Feb 20 2009, 12:50 PM']as much as I hate phelps, I love that I live in a country where EVEN his free speech is allowed. come now, you think Britain will stop at Phelps? To many people, there's no difference between what he says and a nuanced ballanced position that homosexual acts are sinful and homosexual marriage shouldn't be recognized and homosexuals couples shouldn't adopt but that homosexual persons are not to be hated...[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786442' date='Feb 20 2009, 03:02 PM']I may not like what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. Mark my words, today it's "extremism" against homosexuals like the Westboro Baptist Church, tomorrow it's "extremism" against homosexuality like the Roman Catholic Church that will be banned from that country. Cling to the US Constitution and defend it even for this Phelps fellow, for there is NO nation on earth whose government we can trust to censor against error and therefore we must demand governments that tolerate even the most vile of errors so that our beliefs may also be protected.[/quote]
I absolutely agree. There are plenty of private citizens who can protest these morons if they want, but there's no need for the government to do it for them.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786442' date='Feb 20 2009, 02:02 PM']I may not like what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. Mark my words, today it's "extremism" against homosexuals like the Westboro Baptist Church, tomorrow it's "extremism" against homosexuality like the Roman Catholic Church that will be banned from that country. Cling to the US Constitution and defend it even for this Phelps fellow, for there is NO nation on earth whose government we can trust to censor against error and therefore we must demand governments that tolerate even the most vile of errors so that our beliefs may also be protected.[/quote]
Well, the UK does not have to allow anyone in-- especially if their sole purpose is to cause trouble.

[Aloysius]

so at what point does the visit of a Catholic bishop or pope become classified as being there just to cause trouble?

technically they don't have to allow anyone travel; but these grounds for not allowing them are wrong, IMO. they're not coming in to do crimes (except thought crimes), they're coming in to voice their (STUPID) opinion, and Britain is saying "we don't want that opinion expressed in this nation".

if you are willing to concede that type of power to the governments of western civilization, go ahead. As for me, I thank God almighty that the US constitution is still in force here and the government of the US cannot according to its own laws refuse entry on the grounds of people's opinions on such matters. We let the president of Iran come here, those who do not come here to commit true crimes are given fair chance at visas regardless of their opinions about things.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786551' date='Feb 20 2009, 02:38 PM']if you are willing to concede that type of power to the governments of western civilization, go ahead. As for me, I thank God almighty that the US constitution is still in force here and the government of the US cannot according to its own laws refuse entry on the grounds of people's opinions on such matters. We let the president of Iran come here, those who do not come here to commit true crimes are given fair chance at visas regardless of their opinions about things.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
ditto. and i'd be more worried if i was Britain about the people already on their soil who spout even more hateful things.

[jeffpugh]

Heh, I guess I was one of the only ones who thought "WBC" first. Heck, I never even thought of the swimmer.

[Noel's angel]

They're in Ireland....

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1786551' date='Feb 20 2009, 02:38 PM']technically they don't have to allow anyone travel; but these grounds for not allowing them are wrong, IMO. they're not coming in to do crimes (except thought crimes), they're coming in to voice their (STUPID) opinion, and Britain is saying "we don't want that opinion expressed in this nation".[/quote]

unless you count libel, violating the peace, inciting riots/hatred as crimes

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1786528' date='Feb 20 2009, 08:57 PM']Well, the UK does not have to allow anyone in-- especially if their sole purpose is to cause trouble.[/quote]
That was my thought. Canada has denied them entry before as well when their sole purpose was to picket a funeral. And honestly, I would be somewhat surprised if there hasn't been a similar occurrence in the US, but of course I could be wrong.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1786719' date='Feb 20 2009, 09:16 PM']unless you count libel, violating the peace, inciting riots/hatred as crimes[/quote]
it'd be cute if you were calling it libel because they wrote it on picket signs, but I'd think it more like slander and even that it's not LEGALLY slander, merely insulting people is not a crime. libel is when a newspaper misrepresents the facts about someone to destroy their reputation in a way that causes them damage, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see any crime of "libel" here. next thing you know elementary school kids will get charged with libel or slander for calling a classmate q.ueer or something...

I do NOT concede to the governments of western civilization the authority to define "inciting hatred", Canada has already gone over the deep end with that such that calling homosexuality immoral in Canada can be considered "inciting hatred"; now, inciting riots would make sense, except that they're not doing that... they're assembling to voice a stupid and unpopular viewpoint. I do not accept the idea that a stupid and unpopular viewpoint being expressed in a public demonstration qualifies as "inciting a riot"... again, this is not because I like what the WBC says, but because I do not like the governments using their power against unpopular opinions.

I would like to see an example from the US where this was grounds to deny travel visas... I'd consider that unconstitutional in principal. the president of Iran's comments could've sparked riots because of how angry they made people; but he came to the US where he was free to say such things.